- Says CJP’s silence undermines collegial traditions of Supreme Court
- Raises concerns over bench formation, court rules, dissenting opinions and leave policy
- Warns petitions on 26th Amendment must be heard by original Full Court, urges upcoming judicial conference to provide clarity, not silence
ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has penned a letter to Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi, urging him to publicly answer six critical questions relating to “pressing institutional concerns” of the apex court, according to a letter, dated Thursday, surfaced on Friday.
Justice Shah said he wrote the letter “reluctantly” in discharge of an unavoidable institutional duty, citing the CJP’s “persistent and complete indifference” to his repeated communications. He noted that his earlier letters and reminders had gone unanswered, which he termed not only discourteous but also damaging to the court’s collegial traditions.
With the new judicial year beginning Monday and a judicial conference scheduled, Justice Shah stressed it was timely to address these issues openly to reassure judges, the bar, and the public of reforms grounded in transparency and constitutional fidelity.
The six questions posed to the CJP were:
Why has the Practice and Procedure Act (PaPA) Committee never been convened to fulfill its statutory responsibilities?
Why was the revision of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 approved through circulation instead of open deliberation in a Full Court meeting?
Why was the policy on dissenting opinions adopted through individual consultations rather than collective debate?
Why was a General Standing Order (GSO) on leave issued that imposes controls inconsistent with judicial independence?
Why have petitions challenging the 26th Amendment not been fixed before the original Full Court?
Is the CJP promoting judicial independence or enforcing compliance to create a “regimented force”?
Justice Shah underlined that his concerns were institutional, not personal, stressing that they stemmed from duty and responsibility.
On the PaPA Committee, he noted that no official meeting had been convened since CJP Afridi assumed office in October 2024. He alleged unilateral bench formation and sidelining of independent judges, undermining the purpose of collective decision-making. He pointed out that despite an expanded bench strength, case pendency still stood at 57,455.
On the revision of court rules, he said the first update in four decades was of historic importance but was approved via circulation, bypassing Full Court deliberation. Similarly, on the policy for dissenting opinions, he criticized the process of seeking isolated written views instead of collective dialogue, calling it a “tick-box exercise” that diluted judicial collegiality.
Regarding the GSO on leave, Justice Shah described its restrictions as “alien” to a constitutional court, saying they imposed bureaucratic controls, curtailed judges’ freedom, and even mandated disclosure of private residential addresses—a practice he equated with surveillance. He warned this reduced judges to “monitored employees” and undermined independence.
On the 26th Amendment petitions, he argued that they should be heard by the original Full Court, excluding judges elevated after the amendment, to protect the court’s credibility. He cautioned that until then, any reform initiative under the CJP would remain “constitutionally suspect.”
Justice Shah concluded that the legitimacy of the apex court depended on clarity and open dialogue rather than silence, urging the CJP to use the upcoming judicial conference as a moment of institutional renewal.
